Hubbry Logo
Compatibility layerCompatibility layerMain
Open search
Compatibility layer
Community hub
Compatibility layer
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Compatibility layer
Compatibility layer
Compatibility layer
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In software engineering, a compatibility layer is an interface that allows binaries for a legacy or foreign system to run on a host system. This translates system calls for the foreign system into native system calls for the host system. With some libraries for the foreign system, this will often be sufficient to run foreign binaries on the host system. A hardware compatibility layer consists of tools that allow hardware emulation.

Software

[edit]

Examples include:

  • Wine, which runs some Microsoft Windows binaries on Unix-like systems using a program loader and the Windows API implemented in DLLs
  • Windows's application compatibility layers to attempt to run poorly written applications or those written for earlier versions of the platform.[1]
  • KernelEX, which runs some Windows 2000/XP programs on Windows 98/Me.
  • Prism is a Microsoft emulator for ARM-powered Windows devices that translates the underlying code of software built for traditional x86 and x64 binaries from Windows 11 24H2[2]
  • Windows Subsystem for Linux v1, which runs Linux binaries on Windows via a compatibility layer which translates Linux system calls into native windows system calls.
  • Lina, which runs some Linux binaries on Windows, Mac OS X and Unix-like systems with native look and feel.
  • Anbox, an Android compatibility layer for Linux.
  • ACL allows Android apps to natively execute on Tizen, webOS, or MeeGoo phones.[3][4][5]
  • Alien Dalvik allows Android apps to run on MeeGo[6] and Meamo.[7] Alien Dalvik 2.0 was also revealed for iOS on an iPad, however unlike MeeGo and Meamo, this version ran from the cloud.[8][9][10]
  • Darling, a translation layer that attempts to run Mac OS X and Darwin binaries on Linux.
  • Rosetta 2, Apple's translation layer bundled with macOS Big Sur to allow x86-64 exclusive applications to run on ARM hardware.
  • Executor, which runs 68k-based "classic" Mac OS programs in Windows, Mac OS X and Linux.
  • touchHLE is a compatibility layer (referred to as a “high-level emulator”) for Windows and macOS made by Andrea "hikari_no_yume" (Sweden) in early 2023 to run legacy 32-bit iOS software.
  • ipasim is a compatibility layer for Windows that uses WinObjC to translate code from Objective C to native Windows code.[11]
  • aah (sic) is a program for macOS to run iOS apps on macOS 10.15 "Catalina" on x86 processors via translation of the programs via the Catalyst framework.[12]
  • Hybris, library that translates Bionic into glibc calls.
  • 2ine, a project to run OS/2 application on Linux[13]
  • Cygwin, a POSIX-compatible environment that runs natively on Windows.[14]
  • brs-emu is a compatibility layer to run Roku software via BrightScript on other platforms: Web, Windows, macOS, and Linux.[15]
  • FEX-Emu runs x86 Linux applications on ARM64 Linux, and can be paired with Wine to run Windows applications.

Compatibility layer in kernel:

  • FreeBSD's Linux compatibility layer, which enables binaries built specifically for Linux to run on FreeBSD[16] the same way as the native FreeBSD API layer.[17] FreeBSD also has some Unix-like system emulations, including NDIS, NetBSD, PECoff, SVR4, and different CPU versions of FreeBSD.[18]
  • NetBSD has several Unix-like system emulations.[19]
  • Columbia Cycada, an unreleased compatibility layer which runs Apple iOS applications on Android systems
  • Windows Subsystem for Linux provides a Linux-compatible kernel interface developed by Microsoft.[20]
  • The PEACE Project (aka COMPAT_PECOFF) has Win32 compatible layer for NetBSD. The project is now inactive.
  • On RSTS/E for the PDP-11 series of minicomputers, programs written to run on the RT-11 operating system could run (without recompiling) on RSTS through the RT-11 Run-Time System having its EMT flag set, meaning that an RT-11 EMT instruction that matches a RSTS EMT is diverted to the RT-11 Run-Time System which translates them to the equivalent RSTS EMT. Programs written to take advantage of RSTS directly (or calls to RSTS within the Run-Time system itself) signal this by having a second EMT instruction (usually EMT 255) immediately before the actual RSTS EMT code.

A compatibility layer avoids both the complexity and the speed penalty of full hardware emulation. Some programs may even run faster than the original, e.g. some Linux applications running on FreeBSD's Linux compatibility layer may perform better than the same applications on Red Hat Linux. Benchmarks are occasionally run on Wine to compare it to Windows NT-based operating systems.[21]

Even on similar systems, the details of implementing a compatibility layer can be quite intricate and troublesome; a good example is the IRIX binary compatibility layer in the MIPS architecture version of NetBSD.[22]

A compatibility layer requires the host system's CPU to be (upwardly) compatible to that of the foreign system. For example, a Microsoft Windows compatibility layer is not possible on PowerPC hardware because Windows requires an x86 CPU. In this case full emulation is needed.

Hardware

[edit]

Hardware compatibility layers involve tools that allow hardware emulation. Some hardware compatibility layers involve breakout boxes because breakout boxes can provide compatibility for certain computer buses that are otherwise incompatible with the machine.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Compatibility layer

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A compatibility layer is a software interface designed to enable applications or binaries compiled for one operating system, hardware architecture, or legacy environment to run on a different host by translating calls, APIs, and other low-level interactions into equivalents compatible with the host. These layers differ from full emulation or by focusing on translation and behavioral adaptation rather than simulating the entire underlying platform, thereby minimizing performance overhead while supporting cross-platform or . Prominent examples include , an open-source compatibility layer that allows Windows applications to execute on POSIX-compliant operating systems such as , macOS, and BSD by reimplementing Windows APIs and libraries. In Microsoft ecosystems, compatibility layers like those in the Application Compatibility Toolkit or handle legacy Windows applications on newer versions of the OS, applying shims to adjust behaviors such as file paths, registry access, or . Similarly, the (WIA) compatibility layer bridges older imaging devices and applications with modern Windows versions, converting data formats and messages to ensure seamless integration. Compatibility layers play a critical role in software ecosystems by preserving access to legacy codebases, facilitating migration to new platforms, and enabling hybrid environments without requiring full recompilation or rewriting of applications. They are particularly vital in enterprise settings for maintaining operational continuity during OS upgrades and in open-source communities for broadening . However, challenges include incomplete coverage, potential vulnerabilities from unpatched legacy behaviors, and trade-offs in complex applications. Ongoing emphasizes more robust, modular designs to enhance flexibility, , and support for emerging architectures like .

Fundamentals

Definition and Purpose

A compatibility layer is a software intermediary that allows applications designed for one operating system or hardware architecture to operate on another incompatible one by translating or emulating interfaces and APIs. This intermediary acts as a bridge, intercepting and converting calls, data formats, or signals from the source system to those expected by the target system, thereby enabling seamless execution without requiring modifications to the original software or hardware. The primary purposes of compatibility layers include enabling the reuse of legacy software and hardware, facilitating platform migrations such as from x86 to architectures, reducing development costs associated with multi-platform support, and maintaining during technological transitions. For instance, they allow older applications to continue functioning on newer systems without the need for complete rewrites, preserving investments in existing codebases. By providing this translation at the interface level, compatibility layers support smoother adoption of evolving technologies while minimizing disruptions to established workflows. Key benefits of compatibility layers encompass significant cost savings in software by avoiding the need to maintain multiple versions of applications, extended lifespan for existing investments through backward support, and enhanced in environments. A fundamental concept distinguishing compatibility layers is their focus on binary-level compatibility, which permits the execution of unmodified binaries on a different platform, in contrast to source-level compatibility that requires recompiling to adapt to the new environment. This binary-oriented approach is particularly valuable for preserving the integrity and efficiency of pre-compiled executables across diverse systems.

Historical Development

The origins of compatibility layers trace back to the mainframe era, when software interpreters facilitated cross-system data exchange among diverse hardware architectures. IBM's System/360 family, announced in , marked a pivotal milestone by introducing upward and downward compatibility across its models, enabling a unified software that reduced the need for custom adaptations when scaling from smaller to larger systems. This design principle addressed the fragmentation of prior mainframe generations, where incompatible machines hindered and program . In the 1970s, the development of Unix spurred early ports to non-native hardware, such as the in 1978, through cross-compilation and adaptation techniques, allowing the system to operate without full redesign. The and saw compatibility layers gain prominence amid PC , as developers sought to leverage advanced processors while preserving legacy software support. DOS extenders emerged in the mid- to enable 80286 and later 80386 protected-mode execution under , bridging real-mode applications with access without breaking compatibility. Concurrently, operating systems like , released in 1993, incorporated layers to isolate kernel code from platform-specific details, supporting multiple CPU architectures such as x86, MIPS, and Alpha through modular interfaces. The marked a shift toward broader adoption, driven by and architectural transitions in personal computing. , launched in 1999, pioneered by emulating multiple guest operating systems on host hardware, enabling seamless compatibility for development and testing environments. Apple's , introduced in 2006, exemplified during the Mac's migration from PowerPC to Intel processors, allowing PowerPC applications to run on x86 hardware with to minimize performance loss. Since the 2010s, compatibility layers have increasingly targeted ARM-x86 amid mobile and server diversification. integrated x86 emulation into Windows on ARM starting with the 2017 release, enabling legacy x86 applications to execute on ARM64 processors via just-in-time translation, supporting the push for energy-efficient devices. Open-source initiatives like the Darling project, initiated in , have pursued macOS compatibility on by reimplementing Darwin APIs, akin to Wine's approach for Windows software. In the 2020s, advancements continued with improved x86 emulation on , such as Microsoft's Prism in (introduced in 2024), enhancing performance for legacy apps on ARM devices. Throughout this evolution, several factors have propelled advancements: , which has exponentially increased density and computational capacity since 1965, thereby mitigating the overhead of emulation by providing surplus performance for translation tasks; corporate mergers, which often necessitate integrating disparate legacy systems to maintain operational continuity, as seen in pharmaceutical consolidations requiring MetaFrame compatibility migrations; and the rise of cloud and , where standards demand layers to ensure seamless application portability across hybrid environments.

Software Compatibility Layers

Emulation Techniques

Emulation techniques form a foundational approach in software compatibility layers, enabling the of an entire target environment on a host system through instruction-level interpretation. In full-system emulation, the host CPU dynamically processes guest instructions by fetching, decoding, and executing them as if they were native to the target , thereby allowing unmodified software or operating systems from one platform to run on another. This method replicates the behavior of the guest CPU, , and peripheral devices, providing a complete virtualized environment without requiring hardware modifications. The core mechanism involves a CPU emulator that simulates essential elements such as registers and opcodes by breaking down guest instructions into micro-operations for execution on the host. Key components include the CPU emulator, which maintains a global state structure for registers and translates opcodes into host-executable code; a (MMU) emulator that handles virtual-to-physical address translation via a (TLB) cache to minimize repeated computations; and I/O device simulation, achieved through memory-mapped regions with callback functions for reads and writes to mimic hardware interactions like serial ports or storage controllers. To optimize performance, just-in-time () compilation is commonly employed, dynamically recompiling blocks of guest code into host-native instructions stored in a translation cache, which avoids redundant decoding and enables direct jumps between code blocks. Performance in emulation incurs significant overhead due to the interpretive nature of processing each instruction, typically resulting in a 10-50x slowdown compared to native execution without optimizations, stemming from repeated decoding, address translations, and context switches. mitigates this by converting guest code to host-optimized equivalents, reducing the overhead to factors of 2-10x in practice for and floating-point workloads, as seen in systems where software MMU emulation alone introduces an additional 2x penalty. In compatibility layers, these techniques support use cases such as running entire operating systems or individual applications across architectures; for instance, QEMU's user-mode emulation translates and executes foreign binaries like executables on x86 hosts by intercepting system calls and signals, facilitating cross-platform testing and deployment without full system simulation. Historically, emulation techniques evolved from interpretive emulators in the , such as MIMIC for minicomputers, which focused on basic instruction simulation for debugging and system migration on mainframes with limited fidelity due to high computational costs. By the and , advancements in dynamic translation improved accuracy and speed for architecture transitions, like DEC's VAX to Alpha migration. Modern high-fidelity emulators, building on these foundations, achieve near-native performance for legacy preservation through refined methods and comprehensive device modeling.

Translation Methods

Translation methods in software compatibility layers focus on efficiently remapping code or application programming interfaces (APIs) from a source platform to a target one, enabling compatibility without the full of hardware or environments. These approaches prioritize by instructions or intercepting calls at a granular level, making them suitable for running legacy or foreign software on modern systems. Unlike broader emulation techniques that interpret every operation in real-time, translation targets specific code paths or interfaces for optimized execution. Binary translation rewrites machine code from a source instruction set architecture (ISA) to a compatible target ISA, either statically (ahead-of-time) or dynamically (just-in-time during execution). This process allows binaries compiled for one processor family, such as x86-64, to run on another, like ARM64, by generating equivalent native instructions for the host machine. A prominent example is Apple's Rosetta 2, introduced in 2020 with macOS Big Sur, which translates x86-64 binaries to ARM64 for Apple Silicon Macs using a combination of ahead-of-time compilation for initial loading and just-in-time translation for dynamic elements like JIT-generated code. Seminal work in dynamic binary translation, such as the Dynamo system developed by Hewlett-Packard Labs in 2000, demonstrated runtime optimization of translated code blocks to improve performance on heterogeneous architectures. API translation, in contrast, intercepts and redirects calls to system or library functions from one to an equivalent set on the target platform, often through shim layers or wrapper libraries. This method is commonly used to bridge operating system-specific interfaces, allowing applications designed for one ecosystem to leverage the target's native capabilities. In Valve's compatibility layer, released in 2018 as an enhancement to Wine, graphics calls from Windows games are translated to on via components like DXVK, which implements 8/9/10/11 as a Vulkan layer. This enables seamless execution of thousands of Windows titles on and desktops with minimal reconfiguration. Hybrid approaches integrate binary and API translation with mechanisms like code caching to handle repeated execution paths efficiently, reducing translation overhead over time. In dynamic binary translators, translated code fragments are stored in a cache, allowing subsequent invocations to bypass re-translation and execute natively, which is particularly beneficial for loops or frequently called functions. For instance, persistent caching frameworks in dynamic binary translation systems can retain optimized translations across sessions, minimizing startup latency in compatibility scenarios. Compared to emulation, which simulates the source system's behavior instruction-by-instruction and often incurs 10-100x slowdowns, methods exhibit significantly lower overhead, typically resulting in 1.5-5x performance degradation relative to native execution. Rosetta 2, for example, achieves 78-79% of native ARM64 performance in benchmarks like on M1 chips, making it viable for performance-critical applications such as and games. Similarly, Proton's introduces around 10% overhead on high-end GPUs like 40-series in cross-platform gaming tests. However, these methods face limitations in handling or complex dynamic behaviors, where translation accuracy may require additional runtime checks. The technical pipeline for translation typically involves disassemblers to decode source into an , followed by analysis and rewriting to match the target ISA, and finally assemblers to generate executable target binaries. Disassemblers like those in or custom tools break down instructions into semantic components, enabling optimizations such as or during translation. In Wine's DLL override mechanism, for instance, the compatibility layer configures hooks in the equivalent to redirect calls to native DLL implementations, effectively translating semantics without altering the application's binary; this workflow uses built-in overrides to map functions like those in user32.dll to Wine's Unix-based equivalents.

Hardware Compatibility Layers

Emulation and Virtualization

Hardware emulation involves simulating the behavior of physical hardware components in software or reconfigurable hardware like field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) to ensure compatibility with legacy systems on modern platforms. This approach abstracts the underlying physical differences by replicating the timing, interfaces, and functionality of older devices, such as cycle-accurate emulation of () bus peripherals on contemporary Express (PCIe) interfaces. For instance, FPGAs can be programmed to mimic bus protocols, allowing vintage expansion cards to interface with new systems without native support. Virtualization techniques extend this abstraction at the system level through hypervisors, which create virtual hardware environments for guest operating systems, enabling execution on dissimilar host architectures. Type-1 hypervisors, such as released in 2003, run directly on the host hardware to partition resources among multiple virtual machines (VMs). Type-2 hypervisors, like introduced in 2007, operate as applications on a host OS, providing similar isolation but with added software layering. These systems support cross-architecture scenarios, such as running x86 VMs on ARM-based hosts through nested emulation, where the hypervisor simulates the target instruction set atop the host's native execution. Key technologies enhancing these methods include para-virtualization, which modifies guest operating systems for direct communication with the , reducing emulation overhead by avoiding full hardware simulation. Hardware-assisted virtualization further optimizes performance; Intel's VT-x, introduced in 2005, and AMD-V, launched in 2006, provide processor-level extensions that trap and manage sensitive instructions efficiently, enabling near-native execution in VMs. In applications like server consolidation, allows multiple legacy hardware specifications to run on consolidated modern platforms, improving resource utilization while maintaining compatibility for outdated workloads. In embedded systems, FPGAs emulate proprietary chips during development or to extend the lifecycle of specialized hardware, facilitating testing without physical prototypes. With hardware extensions, overhead is typically minimal, often under 5% performance loss in I/O-bound tasks.

Bridge and Adapter Technologies

Bridge and adapter technologies in hardware compatibility layers enable direct device by translating signals, protocols, and electrical characteristics between incompatible interfaces, avoiding the overhead of full emulation or . These solutions are essential for integrating legacy hardware with modern systems or bridging disparate standards in embedded and consumer applications. Protocol bridges are dedicated hardware components that facilitate communication across different bus architectures by converting formats and control signals in real time. USB-to-Ethernet adapters, for example, employ integrated bridge chips to encapsulate Ethernet frames within USB packets, allowing USB-only devices to access wired networks with speeds up to 1 Gbps. Similarly, PCI-to-ISA bridges translate PCI bus transactions to the legacy ISA protocol, enabling older expansion cards—such as sound or add-ons—to function in PCI-based motherboards through subtractive decoding and mapping. Adapter technologies encompass specialized circuits for , including voltage level shifters that interface logic levels between domains like 3.3 V and 5 V to ensure compatibility and prevent electrical damage during cross-domain connections. Timing synchronizers, meanwhile, align asynchronous clocks and data streams using phase-locked loops or delay lines to maintain in protocol conversions. A prominent application is Thunderbolt-to-HDMI converters, which debuted alongside 1's launch in 2011 on Apple Pros, supporting video output up to 2560x1600 resolution by adapting 's signaling to standards. Field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) provide reconfigurable hardware for custom bridge implementations, emulating obsolete buses through synthesized logic that replicates original timing and state machines. For instance, the Minimig project recreates 1980s hardware—including its custom chip set—on modern FPGAs like the Lattice iCE40, achieving near-cycle-accurate compatibility for legacy software and peripherals since its initial development in 2004. Design principles for these bridges prioritize latency minimization via direct hardware signal mapping, which eliminates buffering delays and achieves sub-microsecond translation times in critical paths. Power efficiency is equally vital, especially in mobile adapters, where low-power processes and reduce consumption to under 1 W while supporting high-throughput operations. The evolution of bridge and technologies has progressed from passive cables in the , which offered simple signal extension without active conversion and were limited to short distances due to , to active integrated circuits that handle complex protocol translation. This shift enabled broader , exemplified by the RTL8153 chip, released in 2012, which provides to bridging with backward compatibility and plug-and-play support in a single-chip .

Applications and Challenges

Real-World Implementations

One prominent software compatibility layer is Wine, initiated in 1993 as a free and open-source project to enable Windows applications to run on operating systems by implementing Windows APIs. As of 2025, Wine's Application Database catalogs over 29,000 versions across more than 16,000 application families, reflecting broad support for Windows software across distributions. Darling, another software layer, focuses on translating macOS application binaries and APIs to run natively on without full emulation, building on Darwin foundations to support command-line and select graphical tools. Valve's Proton, launched in 2018 as part of Steam Play, extends Wine to facilitate Windows games on by integrating DXVK for translating calls to , thereby expanding the Steam library's accessibility. In hardware contexts, 's QuickAssist Technology, developed in the 2010s, provides integrated acceleration for cryptographic operations and data compression, allowing diverse CPU architectures to offload intensive tasks to dedicated hardware engines within Intel platforms. ARM's Fast Models offer functionally accurate environments for system-on-chip (SoC) designs, enabling early and verification on virtual prototypes of ARM-based hardware before physical availability. project, begun in 2017, utilizes field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) to recreate 1980s-era consoles and computers through at the description level, preserving retro gaming fidelity via reconfigurable logic rather than . Cross-domain implementations bridge software and hardware paradigms, such as , a port of the Android Open Source Project to x86 architectures since the 2010s, allowing x86-compatible Android applications to run on PCs. Microsoft's (WSL), introduced in 2016, acts as an API-bridging layer that maps Linux system calls to Windows equivalents, allowing GNU/Linux binaries to execute directly in a lightweight environment atop the Windows kernel. These layers demonstrate significant impact in open-source ecosystems, powering workflows dependent on non-native software. Rosetta 2, Apple's 2020 compatibility solution for transitioning to , achieves near-universal support for Intel x86 applications through dynamic , enabling seamless execution of legacy software on -based Macs as of 2025, with phase-out planned starting with macOS 28. Integration trends in highlight hybrid approaches, where processors—-based instances—pair with x86 emulation services to run legacy workloads alongside native applications, optimizing cost and performance in mixed-architecture environments.

Limitations and Future Directions

Compatibility layers, while enabling cross-platform execution, impose notable performance penalties due to the overhead of translating or emulating system calls and instructions. For instance, benchmarks of Windows applications running under Wine on can reveal frame rate reductions of 0-20% for graphics-intensive tasks compared to native execution, depending on the application, hardware, and optimizations like those in recent Proton versions. This overhead is exacerbated in emulation-based layers, where dynamic can introduce additional latency, though translation methods like those in Wine mitigate some costs by avoiding full virtualization. Incomplete feature support remains a core limitation, as compatibility layers rarely achieve full parity with target APIs. Wine, for example, supports a substantial but incomplete subset of the , with its application database rating programs across varying compatibility levels, where only a fraction achieve "platinum" status for seamless operation as of recent assessments. This gap affects specialized features like certain DirectX versions or hardware-specific drivers, leading to fallback behaviors or outright failures in complex software. Security risks further these issues, particularly in emulation and contexts. Compatibility layers can expose vulnerabilities akin to those in virtual machines, such as side-channel attacks exploiting shared resources; for example, layers in full virtualization have been susceptible to Spectre-like flaws that allow guest-to-host information leakage. Additionally, the added abstraction layers increase the , with historical incidents in emulated devices enabling guest escapes to compromise the host system. Compatibility gaps extend to handling dynamic content and protective measures, where layers struggle with runtime-generated code or obfuscated binaries common in modern applications. Anti-piracy mechanisms, such as encrypted execution or hardware checks, often resist translation, triggering failures in emulated environments. Legally, end-user license agreements (EULAs) may restrict needed for layer development, though U.S. law permits it for purposes under doctrines like those in the DMCA. Looking to future directions, AI-accelerated emerges as a promising approach to address these limitations, with research since 2020 exploring for automated opcode mapping and API stub generation to reduce manual implementation efforts. Hardware-native support is advancing through architectures like , whose modular ISA enables extensions for multi-ISA compatibility, allowing seamless execution of diverse instruction sets without heavy emulation. Quantum-resistant layers are also under investigation to facilitate post-quantum transitions, ensuring compatibility with emerging cryptographic standards in secure environments. Key research trends include LLVM's backend optimizations for cross-compilation, which streamline across ISAs by generating efficient intermediate representations. Integration with via the WebAssembly System Interface (WASI), introduced in 2019, promotes universal compatibility by providing a standardized, secure runtime for non-browser modules, enabling portable execution across diverse hosts. Mitigation strategies often balance user-mode and kernel-mode implementations; user-mode layers like Wine offer isolation with lower crash risks but higher translation overhead, while kernel-mode approaches provide tighter integration at the cost of potential system instability. Community-driven efforts in open-source projects, such as ongoing Wine enhancements through collaborative testing and implementations, continue to incrementally close coverage gaps and optimize performance.

References

  1. https://www.winehq.org/about/
  2. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/termserv/application-compatibility-layer
  3. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3381052.3381327
  4. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2309.15996
  5. https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20100311-00/?p=14643
  6. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/image/wia-compatibility-layer
  7. https://techterms.com/definition/compatibility_layer
  8. https://www.incredibuild.com/glossary/compatibility-layer
  9. https://support.apple.com/guide/security/rosetta-2-on-a-mac-with-apple-silicon-secebb113be1/web
  10. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/winprog64/running-32-bit-applications
  11. https://learn.g2.com/backwards-compatibility
  12. https://users.ece.utexas.edu/~merez/EE382V/lect02.pdf
  13. https://www.ibm.com/history/system-360
  14. https://ethw.org/IBM_System/360
  15. https://www.nokia.com/bell-labs/about/dennis-m-ritchie/otherports/newp.pdf
  16. https://www.os2museum.com/wp/dos-memory-managers-extenders-part-i/
  17. https://www.geoffchappell.com/studies/windows/km/hal/history/index.htm
  18. https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/teaching/1516/OpSystems/pdf/12-Case-Study-WindowsNT.pdf
  19. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/vmware
  20. https://www.apple.com/ca/newsroom/2005/06/06Apple-to-Use-Intel-Microprocessors-Beginning-in-2006/
  21. https://www.thurrott.com/windows/windows-10/115877/microsoft-details-windows-10-arm
  22. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/08/os-x-apps-run-on-linux-with-wine-like-emulator-for-mac-software/
  23. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/arm/overview
  24. https://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/digital-logic/12/267
  25. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261063109_Migrating_Legacy_Systems_in_the_Global_Merger_Acquisition_Environment_A_Teaching_Case
  26. http://www.ecis.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Cloud-Computing-Standards-Compatibility-and-Interoperability_final-version1.pdf
  27. https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/usenix05/tech/freenix/full_papers/bellard/bellard.pdf
  28. https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/qemu/+/master/docs/CPU-EMULATION.TXT
  29. https://www.qemu.org/docs/master/user/main.html
  30. https://esj.com/articles/2012/12/17/evolution-of-emulation.aspx
  31. https://github.com/FFRI/ProjectChampollion
  32. https://www.cse.iitm.ac.in/~krishna/courses/2022/odd-cs6013/BalaDusterwaldBanerjiaPLDI2000.pdf
  33. https://github.com/doitsujin/dxvk
  34. https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2025/11/d7vk-brings-direct3d-7-to-linux-using-vulkan-based-on-dxvk/
  35. https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/atc16/atc16_paper-wang.pdf
  36. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-981-99-7872-4_18
  37. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/gco/archive/twiki/pub/Main/PoornimaKamath/bintrans.pdf
  38. https://mjtsai.com/blog/2020/11/16/performance-of-rosetta-2-on-apple-m1/
  39. https://www.tomshardware.com/news/proton-overhead-slows-4090-4080-10-percent-on-linux
  40. https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/schani/papers/bintrans.pdf
  41. https://hackaday.com/2022/11/13/emulate-any-isa-card-with-a-raspberry-pi-and-an-fpga/
  42. https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/srg/netos/papers/2003-xensosp.pdf
  43. https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Changelog
  44. https://www.techtarget.com/searchitoperations/tip/Understand-hardware-support-for-virtualization
  45. https://www.techtarget.com/searchitoperations/definition/AMD-V-AMD-virtualization
  46. https://www.embeddedrelated.com/thread/4878/when-and-why-is-it-a-good-idea-to-use-an-fpga-in-your-embedded-system-design
  47. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2522548.2522598
  48. https://www.maxlinear.com/products/interface/bridges/usb-ethernet-bridges
  49. https://www.ite.com.tw/en/product/cate2/IT8888
  50. https://www.ti.com/product-category/logic-voltage-translation/voltage-translators-level-shifters/overview.html
  51. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/docs/io/thunderbolt/thunderbolt-tech-brief.html
  52. https://www.minimig.ca/
  53. https://www.educative.io/blog/low-latency-in-system-design
  54. https://dl.acm.org/doi/full/10.1145/3572772
  55. https://www.avaccess.com/blogs/guides/technical-development-of-usb-extenders/
  56. https://www.olimex.com/Products/USB-Modules/Ethernet/USB-GIGABIT/resources/rtl8153.pdf
  57. https://www.winehq.org/
  58. https://appdb.winehq.org/appdbStats.php
  59. https://www.darlinghq.org/
  60. https://github.com/ValveSoftware/Proton
  61. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/docs/accelerator-engines/what-is-intel-qat.html
  62. https://www.arm.com/products/development-tools/simulation/fast-models
  63. https://misterfpga.org/
  64. https://www.android-x86.org/
  65. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/about
  66. https://support.apple.com/en-us/102527
  67. https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/graviton/
  68. https://www.phoronix.com/review/wine-ubuntu1804-win10
  69. https://www.phoronix.com/news/Proton-9.0-3-Released
  70. https://www.howtogeek.com/what-is-wine-for-linux-and-how-does-it-work/
  71. https://www.winepak.org/which-windows-applications-are-supported-by-wine/
  72. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/legacy/sp/nistspecialpublication800-125.pdf
  73. https://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~benl/Publications/Journals/ACM_Computing_Surveys_2020.pdf
  74. https://ipwatchdog.com/2021/03/27/reverse-engineering-law-understand-restrictions-minimize-risks/
  75. https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/03/standardizing-wasi-a-webassembly-system-interface/
  76. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/operating-systems/difference-between-user-mode-and-kernel-mode/
  77. https://appdb.winehq.org/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.